Which contract is better?

[Bene Futuis]

Three pretty big contracts signed in short order - two first basemen and one left fielder (sounds like). Which do you like best of:

• Kris Bryant - 7 years, $182M
• Freddie Freeman - 6 years, $162M
• Matt Olson - 7 years, $168M

[Hornsby]

Depends on who it's better for, the player for the team?

Bryant got the best contract for a player, Olson for the team payroll.

[scottw]

Numbers don't lie, but as Hornsby said, Olson might be the contract where the team makes out the better.

[virgonomic]

Freeman is the best value. Olson meets the biggest need.

[Sour Masher]

Bryant's deal with the Rockies is the one I get the least--I don't understand it for the team given where they are at, and they paid the most of the three for the worst of the three players.

I thought Freeman was going to get a lot more (like 7 years, 200 million), and in light of the years and money, I am less enthused by Atlanta's move to let Freeman go, but I've read he turned down a bigger deal from them to return home, so I guess there was not much they could have done to keep him.

Still, even though I think Freeman's deal is a pretty good one for the team all things considered, I still think Olson's contract will be the biggest win for the teams side when it is all said and done. So, I voted for that based on my interpretation of the question.